Recognizing that “alt.space” efforts will resemble the long, lean years of developmental aviation rather than the internet boom, I choose to share technical insights, rather than horde them to maximize hypothetical profits. Nothing is worth less than a patent which expires before it can be profitably used! If we all hide and horde our best ideas, the industry that could use them will develop very slowly, if at all.

By publication in this forum, I forfeit all right to patent the disclosed inventions – AND FORSTALL SUCH EFFORTS BY ANY OTHER INVENTORS! This does not of course negate the rights of issued or pending patents, and may not negate a timely filing with a well documented history of development (although it prejudices such an effort).

While parachute landing is not too difficult or dangerous for a trained and active individual, totally passive parachute landings on the Earth can be hard. On Mars, with a practical size parachute, they are far harder. The ground contact shock can be radically reduced – without critically timed events – if the following four systems are provided:

1. A parachute system
2. A small retrorocket package
3. A long elastic or spring parachute coupling
4. A simple altitude trigger

The altitude trigger can be as simple as a sinker on a fish line. When this contacts the surface, a spring loaded switch – attached to the line – closes, igniting the retro rockets. The retrorockets cancel most of the descent velocity. Except for using a cheap weighted line to sense altitude, this is the Russian landing system. But the additional element greatly changes the dynamics. With the basic system, the parachute is unloaded at once, and collapses. When the rockets burn out, the payload drops in free fall, and will quickly resume its original velocity if the altitude trigger and motor ignition are not very precisely timed. (1 second to 32 feet per second velocity on Earth – equal to a 16 foot free drop - which gives a very hard landing). The deceleration must in any case be short and hard.

With a long spring element, like a Bungee Cord, added to the parachute line, the parachute continues to be loaded (by the spring) when the rockets decelerate the payload. The deceleration can be spread over two or more seconds. At burnout, most of the payload weight is still supported by the slightly less stretched spring. Only the mismatch in force accelerates the payload toward the ground. With a one second timing error – and 75% of the weight supported by the spring – only an 8 foot per second velocity results (equal to a ONE FOOT free drop) giving a very soft touchdown. The addition of this simple spring element reduces the touchdown energy by a factor of 16.

A “snubber” is installed in parallel with the spring element to take the shock of parachute opening, and a damping element is probably desirable to reduce the bobbing, spring oscillation on descent. The damper need not affect the related, partial cycle spring oscillation which makes this system effective.

A secondary, lateral mode is also feasible. Using a dragline, or motorized swivel coupler, the payload can be oriented in a preferred direction relative to wind drift over the ground. If this speed is uncomfortably high, a selected number of retrorockets can be fired to reduce this lateral speed to near zero at the same time that the vertical speed is reduced. A long parachute attachment line will permit the resulting displacement of the payload from under the center of the parachute with little effect on its supporting force.

For the retrorockets, as noted in an earlier post, I would use the PRO 38, solid fuel motors we use as SRBs on our liquid fuel rocket. These 38mm diameter units have demonstrated 100% ignition reliability, with 0.5 sec mean ignition delay and 0.4 second ignition time scatter. A cluster of these small motors would give only moderately increased landing impact if one of them did not fire. But each of the 1.6 pound (6 grain) motors would decelerate 160 pounds of payload from 32 feet per second to a standstill. Three of these motors (weighing 4.8 pounds total) would decelerate over 480 pounds of payload – more than the gross weight of many homebuilt aircraft! Assuming that the unneeded wings would be replaced with a reentry heat shield, the weight of the motor reassigned to life support equipment and the fuel weight distributed between the attitude control system and life support consumables – a very sophisticated, manned capsule should weigh no more! (We plan to use a larger cluster of the same motors for the abort system of our Space-Diving Launch System).

Tripling the retrorocket pack would allow the parachute descent speed to increase to 100 feet per second, with a parachute only one ninth the area. This will be necessary on Mars, where the 40% gravity only partially compensates for the 98% reduction in air density. The actual touchdown velocity is little changed. We used estimates like this (3% of descent weight) for the retrorocket part of a Mars Landing system.

It has long been known by orthodontists that bones respond SLOWLY to sustained forces. Since the bone and muscle loss seen in prolonged “zero g” spaceflight closely resemble the effects of bed rest, no mysterious effects need to be postulated. Muscle growth responds well to periodic exercise (produced for a light weight mission with elastic bungee cords). Bones respond better to sustained forces.

The Gravity Sim-Suit would attach elastic cords to foot stirrups, a waist belt and shoulder straps. This would produce sustained forces similar to standing at rest. A similar arrangement could be used to stress the arms. Modest effort would be required to counter these forces, but the standing body position is close to the energetic neutral point. Marching this condition would produce static bone stress with little muscular effort. It is likely that these simple systems would eliminate long term bone loss in space.

I reiterate my appeal to Dr. Ronald M. Sega, for I believe that some reader of this forum can forward a message to him. Other of our technologies, disclosed in proposals to DOD components (and similarly rejected) deserve attention but will not be publicly released.

(Dr. Ronald M. Sega, Under Secretary of the Air Force. Previously, â€œDirector of Defense Research and Engineeringâ€

has the technology or what's behind it something in common with Komerath's Tailored Force Fields (NIAC-study discussed in the Technology section where spacecowboy offers to contact Prof. Komerath if desired)?

Komerath proposes to form artificial objects in space by electromagnetic waves and shows that this is really possible. Those waves are the main reason of my question. At the point where an object is created by them there is a steady field that can be moved and would carry the object with it.

I am not acquainted with the technology you are referring to, but would like to know more.

The fields I am dealing with would normally be considered "Pseudo Static", near fields since they involve very little electromagnetic radiation. They are nearly pure magnetic fields, using frequencies from 1KHz down to 1 Hz. The radiation is vanishingly small because the energized structures are a very small fraction of the 300,000,000 meter wavelength.

The thread about it is "In-space consturction, building and assembly..." in the Technology section.

The technology is based on radio-waves and in so far differes significantly from yours - but since it can be used to move objects as I understand it it is looking to me as if it might be applied as if it were a tractor beam. Under this aspect it seems to be in the vicinity of your technology and simply might be another version of it.

I also have in mind the aspect that your technology is based on nearly pure magnetic fields while Komerath's technolgy involves magnetic fields in so far as electromagnetic radiation involves magnetic fields. I read at least one of the documents but not under the aspect HOW the technology physicaly works - may be the force of the steady waves comes from their magnetic fields (???????????).

The Electromagnetic and Acoustic Force Fields you identified have absolutely no connection to what I have disclosed. This EM system is interesting (and workable) but involves extremely high energy densities. Neglecting â€œacousticâ€